Mumbai Court November 1983 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat (Bombay Branch) and ors. Vs. State of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1983
Reported in: AIR1985Bom14
Dharmadhikari, J.1. Petitioner 1, which is a brand of an All India Corporation known as Akhil Bharatia Grahak Panchayat (hereinafter called panchayat) and its office bearers and members have challenged the validity and /or legality and propriety of fare hike, effect by the State of Maharashtra, in consultation with the State Transport Authority vide final notification dt. 5th Jan. 1981, fixing fares for the State carriages plying within the municipal areas or in mofussil area, in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under S.43 of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. By and large it is an admitted position that the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation is operating buses to the exclusion of other private operators, excepting in certain parts of the State and qua some routes, where private bus operators are still permitted to ply their buses. Thus, the State Transport Corporation has by now virtually eschewed competition and eliminated all private operators from the field except in certa...
Nav Bharat Builders and Another Vs. Pyarabai and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1983
Reported in: II(1984)ACC424; 1984(2)BomCR9; [1986]60CompCas87(Bom)
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sangli, dated December 12, 1979. It is not disputed that the deceased, Jagannath, died in a motor accident, which took place on October 17, 1978, on the National Highway known as Bangalore-Pune Road. It appears that the deceased, Jagannath, was sleeping on the road and the motor truck owned by appellant No. 1 was coming from Kolhapur side and was proceeding to Pune on October 17, 1978. Therefore, it is also not disputed that to some extent then negligence of the deceased in sleeping on the road was responsible for the accident.2. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has assessed contributory negligence of the deceased, Jagannath, to the extent of twenty-five per cent. The learned member of the Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the driver of the truck was driving his vehicle neg...
Cawasji Behramji and Co. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1983
Reported in: 1984(16)ELT241(Bom)
1. The petitioners are a partnership firm carrying on business as shipchandlers. In the course of the business, the petitioners import consignment of various provisions from abroad, and the goods so imported are supplied as stores to foreign going ships. The goods being meant to be used as ships' stores are not liable to payment of any customs duty.2. Sometime in May, 1979, the petitioners imported consignment of 2400 tins of orange juice and 1200 tins of tomato juice from Australia. The said consignment was sent to India by the petitioners' suppliers by the ship known as 'Nedlloyd Lek'. On May 10, 1979, the petitioners filed the bill of entry in respect of the said goods with the Customs Department. The quantities mentioned in the said bill of entry were identical with the quantity stated in the bill of lading received by the petitioners from their foreign suppliers. The vessel arrived at Bombay Docks on May 15, 1979 and commenced unloading on May 16, 1979. The petitioners attended th...
Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. P.M. Srivastava, Incom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1983
Reported in: (1984)43CTR(Bom)5; [1985]153ITR209(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The petitioner is a public limited company governed by the Companies Act, 1956, and engaged in the business of manufacture of and dealing in cotton yarn and cloth, rayon, tyrecord, cement, chemicals, etc.2. The petitioner has been manufacturing rayon and tyrecord at its plants under one of its divisions known as Century Rayon. The said plants were set up in terms of the industrial licenses granted to the petitioner by the Union of India under the provisions of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IDR Act'). The petitioner had applied to the Central Government for grant of an industrial licence under the IDR Act for setting up a plant for the manufacture of 1.6 million lbs. of nylon/perlon per annum. The Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by rule 15 (2) of the Registration and Licensing of Industrial Undertaking Rules, 1952, granted a conditional industrial licence dated February 12, 1960, to the petitio...
Madhavi Madhukar Kulkarni Vs. Madhukar Ramchandra Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Bom239; 1984(2)BomCR26; (1983)85BOMLR600; 1984MhLJ34
Dharmadhikari, J.1. This first appeal has been placed before the Division Bench in view of the reference made by Agarwal, J. vide order dated 18th April, 1983.2. When the matter was placed for hearing before the single Judge of this court, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal itself. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the decision of Mohta, J. in Bhaskar v. Mirabai 1983 Mah LJ 115. Since the learned single Judge (Agarwal, J.) found it difficult to subscribe to the view expressed by Mohta, J. in the said judgment, the matter was referred to Division Bench.3. The respondent husband filed a petition under S. 13, Hindu Marriage Act for a decreeeeee of divorce against the appellant wife. It was contended by the respondent-husband that she had left the matrimonial home and went to reside with her parents without any rhyme or reason and thus has deserted him. The appellant-wife resisted the p...
Shri Vinod Kumar Gosalia Vs. Shri Frank Silva Lobo Norton
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1983
Reported in: (1984)86BOMLR196
Couto, J.1. The petitioners challenge by way of this writ petition the orders dated February 28, 1979 and August 3, 1983, passed by the Rent Controller, Margao and the Administrative Tribunal, respectively, whereby the eviction proceedings instituted against them by the first and second respondents had been stopped and the petitioners had been ordered to put the landlords/first and second respondents in possession of the suit premises within thirty days from the day of the order.2. The case of the petitioners is that the first and second respondents have instituted eviction proceedings against them on the ground that they had failed to pay rents as well as on the ground that the leased premises had been kept closed and thereby damaged. In the course of the proceedings, the first and second respondents moved an application under Section 32(4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease. Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, (hereinafter called the Act for the sake of brevity) and prayed ...
Smt. Kamlavati V. Mehra Vs. Fifth Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1983
Reported in: (1984)7ITD571(Mum.)
1. The only ground on which the order of the AAC is challenged in this wealih-tax appeal is as follows: The learned wealth-tax authorities have erred in law and on the facts of the case in considering the proposed dividend of Rs. 7,00,000 as per balance sheet of Subhash Silk Mills (P.) Ltd. as reserves while valuing the shares of the aforesaid company as per Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957.2. The way the ground of appeal is worded, the answer appears to be obvious, that is against the assessee. In other words, the proposed dividend as per balance sheet of the company cannot be treated as a liability for the purpose of valuation of the shares of the company under Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. However, on the facts of the asses-see's case, we find that an interesting question arises for consideration.3. The assessee, Smt. Kamlavati V. Mehra, had substantial shareholding (3,150 equity shares) in Subhash Silk Mills (P.) Ltd. as on 31-3-1977 which was the valuation date rele...
First Income-tax Officer Vs. C.B. Thadani
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1983
Reported in: (1984)8ITD258(Mum.)
1. In this appeal filed by the revenue, following three grounds are taken: (i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AAC erred in deleting the amount of Rs. 3,000 disallowed under Rule 6D(1) and added back by the ITO on account of foreign travel expenses of Shri M.K. Advani, employee of the assessee. (ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AAC further erred in directing the ITO to consider the said amount of Rs. 3,000 for the purpose of granting deduction under Section 35B. (iii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AAC further erred in directing the ITO to allow depreciation on air-conditioner fitted to the car at 20 per cent.2. The assessee has also come up by way of cross-objection taking up following five grounds:-- (i) in not considering the deduction under-section 80J of the Income-tax Act as claimed by the assessee, (ii) in disallowing the investment allowance claimed...
Nadirshah Rustamji Mulla Vs. Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle Vi(4 ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1983
Reported in: [1985]154ITR629(Bom); [1987]31TAXMAN9(Bom)
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. In Writ Petition No. 1907 of 1982, the petitioner Nadirshah Rustamji Mulla. His wife, Meherbai Nadirshah Mulla, is the petitioner in Write Petition No. 1908 of 1982. The petitioners in both these petitions, at the relevant time, were co-owners of about 80 acres of agricultural land situated at Majiwade, District Thane. These lands were purchased by them in the year 1944. The lands have been used used for agricultural purposes and the agricultural income from these lands is disclosed in the return of income filed by the petitioners.2. By a conveyance dated February 28, 1974, the petitioners sold a portion of the said agricultural land and measuring 42,788 square metres to Uni Abex Alloy Products Ltd. for a price of Rs, 4,86,700. By another conveyance dated March 29, 1974, the petitioners sold a further portion of the said agricultural land with a farm house and a small portion of non-agricultural land, all together admeasuring 38,148 square meters to Universal Fe...
Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company Private Ltd. Vs. Union of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1983
Reported in: 1984(15)ELT371(Bom)
1. The petitioners are a Private Limited Company which carry on business of manufacturing drums and barrels.2. For the manufacturing process, the petitioners obtained in June 1962, two licences for importing steel sheets. Under the first licence, the petitioners were authorised to import 'milk steel item 180 black plain sheets drum quality for manufacturing drums and containers' subject to the terms and conditions detailed in annexure thereto. The total C.I.F. value of the licence was Rs. 40,00,000. The second licence was for 'Steel Drum for Lubricating Oil Packing' of the total C.I.F. value of Rs. 50,30,000/-. The petitioners placed orders for import of steel with a firm of manufacturers in the United States of America, and the goods under the two licences reached the Bombay Port in 12 separate consignments. On arrival of the consignments, the petitioners filed Bills of Entry for consumption of the goods but the Chief Customs Appraiser at Bombay did not allow clearance of the goods on...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »